Dearth of new camera releases
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 4 May 2010 19:55 "Drazic" <drazic(a)mocktown.net> wrote in news:jdmdnUk0DolInH3WnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d(a)pipex.net: > "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:5e868267-67b8-46dd-b7ff-c70e6aefdaaa(a)q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com. > .. >> Dear camera makers; reducing releases of cameras in a recession >> makes about as much sense as cutting back advertising to save money. >> All you do is allow your competition to take (and keep) market share. >> If the market has shrunk from 100 to 80 (arbitrary numbers) do think >> being LESS visible is going to help your company?? You are now >> fighting over a smaller pie, so get the F--- in there and produce >> something. > > > I think it's more about the importance of releasing something that > people want/need, at a reasonable price. > > To try and put it into perspective, people will pay more for a car > with air con, but they don't really care about digital climate > control, as long as it blows cold air when they need it. Sure digital > climate control with individual temperatures on each side looks good, > but it doesn't really serve a useful purpose. > > Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they > can't at the moment? > > It's not a dig, just interested. Switch sensors at will.
From: Rich on 4 May 2010 19:56 rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4be01c2a$0$1659 $742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: >> Drazic wrote: > >>> Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they >>> can't at the moment? >>> >>> It's not a dig, just interested. >> >>I'll tell what I want: >> >>1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are >>full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work >>and actually focus on what they are aimed at. > > You've already got that. The problem is that a scene isn't a spot > and when you add multiple focus points then the camera has to decide > which point to use and for how long. > Except that you could do completely manual, cumulative spot metering with some old SLRs!! OM-4T was an example.
From: Ray Fischer on 4 May 2010 22:33 Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4be01c2a$0$1659 >$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > >> Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: >>> Drazic wrote: >> >>>> Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they >>>> can't at the moment? >>>> >>>> It's not a dig, just interested. >>> >>>I'll tell what I want: >>> >>>1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are >>>full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work >>>and actually focus on what they are aimed at. >> >> You've already got that. The problem is that a scene isn't a spot >> and when you add multiple focus points then the camera has to decide >> which point to use and for how long. >> >Except that you could do completely manual, cumulative spot metering with >some old SLRs!! OM-4T was an example. "Metering" is not the same as "focusing". -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 4 May 2010 22:34 C.P. Robbins <cprobbins(a)cprobbins3.org> wrote: >On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:58:59 -0500, Doug McDonald ><mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: > >>On 5/4/2010 6:15 AM, Drazic wrote: >> >>> >>> Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they >>> can't at the moment? >>> >>> It's not a dig, just interested. >> >>I'll tell what I want: >> >>1) better autofocus. This means a smaller spots, all of which are >>full X style and work at f/2.8. It also means they actually work >>and actually focus on what they are aimed at. > >Any of the contrast-detection cameras can do that. Nope. If anything they're worse because they need to sample a large area in which to determine contrast. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: C J Campbell on 5 May 2010 16:07
On 2010-05-04 05:15:15 -0600, "Drazic" <drazic(a)mocktown.net> said: > "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:5e868267-67b8-46dd-b7ff-c70e6aefdaaa(a)q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... Dear > >> camera makers; reducing releases of cameras in a recession makes >> about as much sense as cutting back advertising to save money. All >> you do is allow your competition to take (and keep) market share. If >> the market has shrunk from 100 to 80 (arbitrary numbers) do think >> being LESS visible is going to help your company?? You are now >> fighting over a smaller pie, so get the F--- in there and produce >> something. > > > I think it's more about the importance of releasing something that > people want/need, at a reasonable price. > > To try and put it into perspective, people will pay more for a car with > air con, but they don't really care about digital climate control, as > long as it blows cold air when they need it. Sure digital climate > control with individual temperatures on each side looks good, but it > doesn't really serve a useful purpose. > > Just out of interest, what do you want the camera's to do that they > can't at the moment? > > It's not a dig, just interested. The manufacturers are not releasing new cameras because they value Rich's opinion very highly and they know that he would just dis anything they release anyway. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |